As graphic designers, we have to think about meaning on multiple levels, a skill for which we are often not given credit. Conceptually, we have to construct a messaging framework for our work, a larger umbrella that imparts meaning. (This is the part of design with which people often struggle.) Then, we must realize our concept aesthetically, creating balance, alignment and continuity through the interplay of multiple elements, like form, image, color and typography. For many of us, we are students of these disciplines for life, since the elements can be mingled in an endless array of combinations.
Good designers impart meaning at every level, and they recognize that opportunity exists at every level, whether it is the shape of letterforms or the colors that we select. However, designers often cringe when the idea of willful manipulation is introduced into the design equation. Yet, I wonder, “Isn’t that our job?” As I was perusing What Happens behind the Scenes, I asked myself that very question, and as usual, the answer was easy: Yes, we are fully devoted to the art of manipulation.
I’ll give you a simple example. When you design a poster, you have a list of goals, but the first goal is always the same, you want the poster to be noticed. In other words, you want the poster to capture the attention of any person that comes within its line of sight. Then, you want to pull them into the poster, conveying the smaller details. Isn’t that the very basis of manipulation, getting someone to do something that they would not have done without your influence? Good posters play on emotion to attract attention; they reach right into our stored memories and force the significance of their subject matter upon us.
If you design packaging, you want the packaging to successfully attract customers, and you want those customers to buy the product around which the packaging is wrapped. You want to encourage action, which is another way to look at manipulation. Most designers would agree that the packaging for Altoids is exceptional. I believe that it is more than exceptional; it is a perfect example of manipulation through design. Taste aside, Altoids are cheap, chalky white mints, which perform a pretty basic function, but the packaging paints an entirely different picture of them, a story of nostalgia, elegance and value. Get a box of Altoids, dump the mints into a plastic bag and place them on a shelf. Inherited memory aside, who is going to buy them?
However, I wouldn’t despair. Every person in the corporate world, whether they will admit it or not, is involved in the art of manipulation. (Everyone is selling something, whether they are a salesman or a designer. Ouch, you didn’t see that coming.) Salesmen, however, have fewer tools at their disposal. Designers have more power than they often recognize. We can give meaning to the meaningless. We can endow ugly or mediocre ideas with beauty. The salesman might have an expense account, but as designers, we hold the real keys to the kingdom.
Ethically, manipulation is a slippery slope. Producing beautiful, engaging work is meaningful, and it positively impacts the world in which we live. The rub lives in our decision to produce beautiful work for clients who have less than admirable ends in mind, and that is a personal choice with which every designer must struggle.
Why, then, do we cringe at the mention of manipulation? I could spend weeks hypothesizing about that very idea, but I think that there are two easy explanations. Designers are artists, who balance fact and opinion. Though our work might be commercial in nature, we truly want it to be beautiful, and the idea of manipulation, whether aesthetic or scientific, demeans the beauty that we seek. Moreover, as students of design history, we know the lengths to which manipulation can be taken, and as a group of socially conscious human beings, we understand that it is a fine line to walk.
Marlon Brando, in fits of self-recrimination, would often call actors liars. He was right; no good actor portrays himself or herself on stage or screen. I never understood the self-recrimination, though. Everyone knows that actors are immersed in the art of manipulation. I, for one, love to be convinced that Denzel Washington is a sinister criminal, because it is entertaining. Yet, actors are rarely involved in the decision to sell you something. I think that you can see where this slope ends.
The art of manipulation might not seem appealing, but more and more, it is in high demand. I am not at odds with it, because I note that manipulation is a significant ingredient in human interaction, and like many of you, I am not willing to do it blindly. I am a fan of doing everything with my eyes wide open. I don’t have any delusions about the ends to which my means are applied. I just want to make sure that those ends sync up with my moral compass.
Jim Schachterle is a student at the Portfolio Center in Atlanta, GA. Before returning to school, he worked in publishing for eight years. His work can be viewed at unstrungstudio.com.
Well said Jim.
I hope most designers are aware of their manipulation, if not, what would their motives for designing be? That manipulation "or trickery" is what makes what we do so great. The small pleasantries afforded to us by those "ah ha" moments.
I believe Milton Glaser said "ambiguity is what makes the mind move." Whether that ambiguity moves the mind towards listening to Bob Dylan or saving Darfur and how that sits with our conscience is a different story.
and to digress....the slippery slope comment is great. i remember ari saying it on entourage in a great scene from one of my favorite episodes. in case anyone cares....
On Dec.05.2007 at 10:36 AM